Bociferous
New member
The Calvinist position in this thread (and countless others) is that Christ’s sheep –those who hear His voice—are equal to the elect. The assertion is a logical one as there is no specific passage in the Bible that directly links the two, so it seems disingenuous for b57 to continually harangue his opponents to show verses “that say Christ died for all men without exception” when his base propping up his argument also has no direct verses to support it.
It’s also odd that 57 uses John 6:44 as a proof text in light of the fact that Jesus identifies who (more accurately how many) He intends to draw in John 12:32.
57’s response to Heb 2:9, 9:12, 1Jn 2:2 and 2Cor 5:19 is the insistence that all these passages refer to Jesus’ sheep. Because his defense begins with equating elect with sheep, the passages in question have to be modified to fit his doctrine in order to maintain coherence in his theology. But again, using 57’s own methods, where does it say in any of the passages in question that the all and everyone spoken of are limited to Jesus’ sheep? It doesn’t. Thus the thread is only another of thousands of attempts to gloss over a tension between Calvinism and Arminianism by modifying word meanings to make them fit.
Neither Calvinist or Arminian triumphs.
1Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.
Rom 5:15-18 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.
For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
Both modify these (and other) clear teachings to fit pet doctrines.
God seems to have designed creation such that spiritual and material principles often correspond or have companionable features. I’m a compatibilist because nature has a compatibilist design. Example: Absolute physical laws remain constant even while matter changes. Even though a piece of fruit as mutable matter springs from a blossom or flower, takes shape, ripens, then begins to decay and its molecules and atoms disperse back into the material realm, all its process are overseen by the absolute laws that govern matter.
The compatibilist structure goes beyond a view of human will, it’s also expressed in salvation, just in a different format. Calvinism models the immutable (God sovereignly chooses and is resolute or doesn’t change His mind, i.e., absolute nature) while Arminianism models the mutable (exercise of the will in time, salvation can be lost if neglected, i.e., changeable nature).
The compatibilist structure also demolishes the atheist argument that in Scripture God changes His mind while claiming to be unchangeable, an apparent contradiction. Simply put, God’s ETERNAL decrees are unchangeable (Mal 3:6, etc.), while in the TEMPORAL He allows change when dealing with humans in mutable time and space (Jer 26:3, etc.).
Only the universal view of salvation is able to resolve the tension of modifying passages to fit doctrine. Paul, in Rom 11 after carefully outlining the exclusivist distinction (saved and unsaved, grafted in or cut off from the olive tree, current remnant in the midst of the unrighteous, etc.) informs of the mystery of God’s intention to save all Israel (vv. 26 & 31-32.) Both Calvinist and Arminian modify the meaning of “all” to fit the eternal punishment doctrine, violating their own literalist rule that one is to not hinder the clear, simple meaning of the Bible authors.
The tension evaporates when a few simple principles are applied.
Godly fire is a metaphor defining the destruction of bad parts (goats, tares, etc.) from within each human, not punishment or annihilation of bad persons. Hellfire cleanses (assists the will by creating ability for moral choice) in time and to the degree we hear and obey, are refined to faith—salvation assured in time (1Tim 4:10). Same hellfire is used to separate good and bad parts from the unsaved at the point of entrance into eternity, where God cleanses without mercy (Ezek 7:4, 9:10, Jer 11:11).
Only the universalist view allows Paul to speak the plain, simple, unmodified truth and resolves the tension Calvinism and Arminianism have been incapable of solving for over 400 years.
But then, doctrinal discussions aren’t really about truth anyway. They’re about defending pet beliefs regardless of the tensions they’re bogged down with.
It’s also odd that 57 uses John 6:44 as a proof text in light of the fact that Jesus identifies who (more accurately how many) He intends to draw in John 12:32.
57’s response to Heb 2:9, 9:12, 1Jn 2:2 and 2Cor 5:19 is the insistence that all these passages refer to Jesus’ sheep. Because his defense begins with equating elect with sheep, the passages in question have to be modified to fit his doctrine in order to maintain coherence in his theology. But again, using 57’s own methods, where does it say in any of the passages in question that the all and everyone spoken of are limited to Jesus’ sheep? It doesn’t. Thus the thread is only another of thousands of attempts to gloss over a tension between Calvinism and Arminianism by modifying word meanings to make them fit.
Neither Calvinist or Arminian triumphs.
1Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.
Rom 5:15-18 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.
For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
Both modify these (and other) clear teachings to fit pet doctrines.
God seems to have designed creation such that spiritual and material principles often correspond or have companionable features. I’m a compatibilist because nature has a compatibilist design. Example: Absolute physical laws remain constant even while matter changes. Even though a piece of fruit as mutable matter springs from a blossom or flower, takes shape, ripens, then begins to decay and its molecules and atoms disperse back into the material realm, all its process are overseen by the absolute laws that govern matter.
The compatibilist structure goes beyond a view of human will, it’s also expressed in salvation, just in a different format. Calvinism models the immutable (God sovereignly chooses and is resolute or doesn’t change His mind, i.e., absolute nature) while Arminianism models the mutable (exercise of the will in time, salvation can be lost if neglected, i.e., changeable nature).
The compatibilist structure also demolishes the atheist argument that in Scripture God changes His mind while claiming to be unchangeable, an apparent contradiction. Simply put, God’s ETERNAL decrees are unchangeable (Mal 3:6, etc.), while in the TEMPORAL He allows change when dealing with humans in mutable time and space (Jer 26:3, etc.).
Only the universal view of salvation is able to resolve the tension of modifying passages to fit doctrine. Paul, in Rom 11 after carefully outlining the exclusivist distinction (saved and unsaved, grafted in or cut off from the olive tree, current remnant in the midst of the unrighteous, etc.) informs of the mystery of God’s intention to save all Israel (vv. 26 & 31-32.) Both Calvinist and Arminian modify the meaning of “all” to fit the eternal punishment doctrine, violating their own literalist rule that one is to not hinder the clear, simple meaning of the Bible authors.
The tension evaporates when a few simple principles are applied.
Godly fire is a metaphor defining the destruction of bad parts (goats, tares, etc.) from within each human, not punishment or annihilation of bad persons. Hellfire cleanses (assists the will by creating ability for moral choice) in time and to the degree we hear and obey, are refined to faith—salvation assured in time (1Tim 4:10). Same hellfire is used to separate good and bad parts from the unsaved at the point of entrance into eternity, where God cleanses without mercy (Ezek 7:4, 9:10, Jer 11:11).
Only the universalist view allows Paul to speak the plain, simple, unmodified truth and resolves the tension Calvinism and Arminianism have been incapable of solving for over 400 years.
But then, doctrinal discussions aren’t really about truth anyway. They’re about defending pet beliefs regardless of the tensions they’re bogged down with.
